State v. Kinney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Qreene Circuit Court.—Hon. "W. E. Geiger, Judge. The indictment was signed “ S. H. Boyd, Circuit Attorney.” Defendant contends that the clerical mistake, “ circuit attorney,” for “ prosecuting attorney,” invalidates the indictment. It was not a defect which tended to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant, and the objection was properly disregarded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Qreene Circuit Court.—Hon. "W. E. Geiger, Judge. The indictment was signed “ S. H. Boyd, Circuit Attorney.” Defendant contends that the clerical mistake, “ circuit attorney,” for “ prosecuting attorney,” invalidates the indictment. It was not a defect which tended to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant, and the objection was properly disregarded. R. S. 1879, § 1821. The prosecuting attorney’s signature, without his official title, would have been sufficient. 1 Bishop .Crirn. Proc., (3 Ed.) § 698. Eor a court is bound to take judicial notice of its own…
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, C.
The defendant was indicted at the May term, 1881, of the circuit court of Greene county, for selling fermented and distilled liquors on Sunday, the indictment being based upon section 1581, Revised Statutes 1879. He moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it was not signed by the prosecuting attorney. The court overruled the motion. The defendant was arraigned and a plea of not guilty entered. Upon the trial he was convicted and fined $27 7-12, from which he has appealed. It is urged that the court erred in refusing to quash the indictment, and the defendant moved to set…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hipes v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
- State v. SalgeNevada Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. BowlesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- State v. BrockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State v. SweeneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- State v. SaltsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- State v. HyattSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904